Colbert Nails Author of The Purpose Driven Life

[SirPhilip]

(What is with the server today?)

I understand most people here just fine.

If exchanges were treated as a discipline where rules are followed, then argumentativeness wouldn't exist. You don't have to follow any rules, though. If you are mature enough to follow them, you have license to goad, mock and taunt those that don't. You recall your well-intentioned exchanges with Claus, don't you? He isn't aware he just attempts to justify what he doesn't like. Of course, you learned this the frustrating way. Similarly, Foster thinks he's reasonably debunking or invalidating what I stated, when anyone can Google it and see why this is not unreasonable at all to accept, but inane on his part to debunk.

 

[SirPhilip]

They tend to be terribly rude and exhibit vigilantism while never really saying anything and becoming inordinately offended when the ad homs come back at them. I usually put them on ignore and think of formosa's law.

Ah, Formosa's "Law":

"Internet and in real life, to seek amusement by ridiculing people who spout bogus nonsense or engage in silly behavior, on the basis that they have effectively invited this ridicule by their own overt behavior, usually some combination of stupidity, hypocrisy, and pomposity, but in any case behavior that they presumably have control over."

It goes on to say:

"...Formosa's law states that if someone's weird behavior is caused by an actual pathology, it is inappropriate for others to increase their suffering by adding ridicule. Instead, ridicule should be reserved for people who know better than to engage in their improper conduct."

So something here reminds you of someone laughing at a disabled person..

 

[Foster Zygote]

If you can't write mature responses, I'll make an exhibition of it.

I'm perfectly happy to have our exchanges, including your frequent use of insult, stand in the public record.

So don't think that I don't bow immediately, it's a requirement.

What?

The constructive criticism isn't invalid at all.

That is referring to the same flawed study that is still your only source. How about some research that has been published in peer reviewed journals? And I take it that you admit that you were in error when you stated that the subject was beyond medical science, as you are now trying to justify your claims scientifically.

Debunking it makes no sense, however, as it is entirely reasonable to assume this probably happens.

The assumption is no more reasonable than the assumption that rhino horn is a valid treatment for human erectile dysfunction.

You reject this altogether for no reason and cannot explain yourself.

I have explained myself.

1. There is no convincing scientific evidence supporting your claim. In fact there is scientific evidence refuting your claim. This has been presented to you yet you have chosen to ignore it.

2. The evidence that you have tried to present as scientific support, despite also claiming that the matter is not subject to scientific scrutiny, comes from a single highly suspect source.

3. Your claim that science will verify your claims in the future, despite claiming that the matter is not subject to scientific scrutiny, is irrelevant. It is no more valid an argument than claiming that rhino horn will one day be proved to cure erectile dysfunction and it is a tacit admission that you currently have no evidence.

4. "I think it works" does not meet any scientific standard of evidence. There are known psychological reasons why people might think something works when in fact the effect is psychosomatic. Thus there is a very real likelihood that it only "works" because you expect it to work.

Want me to correct the Wikipedia article for you?

For me? Where do you think this whole "correct the Wikipedia article" thing is supposed to go?

 

[SirPhilip]

Doublepost.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Foster thinks he's reasonably debunking or invalidating what I stated, when anyone can Google it and see why this is not unreasonable at all to accept, but inane on his part to debunk.

Anyone can Google to find the same poorly conducted study that is the only source that you have presented. And anyone can Google to find the article criticizing that study that you once accidentally included as supporting your claim. Several people have stated that they find your claims to be poorly supported, it isn't just me.

 

[SirPhilip]

For me? Where do you think this whole "correct the Wikipedia article" thing is supposed to go?

For you, and cookies as well. We'll also take a step back for a moment and change the situation: I'll bow.

I'll also clean up the Wikipedia article. What do you want me to say when I'm countered that it is already known to contain several components which do in fact effect mood (and sharply varying levels could certainly be assumed to have a noticeable effect), what these studies suggest is understudied, but clearly valid, and removing it makes no sense. Unless of course, I'd rather that not be the case.

Well?

 

[joobz]

I reserve the right to treat anyone who wastes my time rudely. Other people here aren't as rude, although I hope it becomes a trend.

I again ask, What trend do you wish to create?

 

[Foster Zygote]

For you, and cookies as well. We'll also take a step back for a moment and change the situation: I'll bow.

I'll also clean up the Wikipedia article. What do you want me to say when I'm countered that it is already known to contain several components which do in fact effect mood (and sharply varying levels could certainly be assumed to have a noticeable effect), what these studies suggest is understudied, but clearly valid, and removing it makes no sense. Unless of course, I'd rather that not be the case.

Well?

Ah yes, I see. You are convinced that if I add a comment that the paragraph regarding the antidepressant qualities of semen is based on a single, suspect study and that it should be treated accordingly that droves of people will march on my location with torches and farm implements and validate you.

Be my guest: Mention that the single study cited has received criticism for its sloppy methodology and see what sort of "backlash" results.

BTW, what you are presently doing by citing the Wiki article and the others is an appeal to authority. You aren't saying it's correct based on the facts, you are saying it's correct because it's printed in Wikipedia.

 

[joobz]

BTW, what you are presently doing by citing the Wiki article and the others is an appeal to authority. You aren't saying it's correct based on the facts, you are saying it's correct because it's printed in Wikipedia.

It's curious to focus on that wiki article. The quality of some wiki articles are great, but others tend to be a less so.

From that wiki article discussion page:

OH COME ON PEOPLE!! MY FRIENDS AND I HAVE BEING JOKING ABOUT THIS PAGE FOR NEARLY A YEAR! I HONESTLY CANNOT BELIEVE THIS PICTURE STILL HASN'T BEEN DELETED!!!

and when you read through the edit history section, it becomes obvious that that page is still not quite up to a reliable standard.

 

[SirPhilip]

Anyone can Google to find the same poorly conducted study that is the only source that you have presented. And anyone can Google to find the article criticizing that study that you once accidentally included as supporting your claim. Several people have stated that they find your claims to be poorly supported, it isn't just me.

They suggest what some of us already know, it happens all the time. Both studies certainly aren't an argument. I did declare a positive however, the justification being direct experience. Since it is simple to validate, I broke no rule, just a different situation. Perhaps that's where you misunderstood (..looking at the mess below) although I don't forgive you.

The two studies just suggest a correlation exists. Why do you find this so difficult to grasp, or so important to completely invalidate?

 

[joobz]

They suggest what some of us already know, it happens all the time. Both studies certainly aren't an argument. I did declare a positive however, the justification being direct experience. Since it is simple to validate, I broke no rule, just a different situation. Perhaps that's where you misunderstood (..looking at the mess below) although I don't forgive you.

The two studies just suggest a correlation exists. Why do you find this so difficult to grasp, or so important to completely invalidate?

Um, if you are refering to the fact that after ejaculation, men are tired...that's hardly proof that there's "Something in the semen".

 

[Foster Zygote]

They suggest what some of us already know, it happens all the time. Both studies certainly aren't an argument.

Both studies? Everything you have provided has led back to a single study.

I did declare a positive however, the justification being direct experience.

Your direct experience does not meet any scientific standard of evidence. There are other possible explanations for your experiences that you must address given the fact that medical evidence contradicts your claim. You keep ignoring the fact that millions of people think that rhino horn will give a man an erection. Many of them believe this based on personal experience. Do you agree with them?

Since it is simple to validate, I broke no rule, just a different situation.

Could you clarify? Are you claiming that your personal experience meets the scientific standard of evidence.

Perhaps that's where you misunderstood (..looking at the mess below) although I don't forgive you.

Forgive me? You really are comically arrogant.

The two studies just suggest a correlation exists.

One study. Unless you are including your personal experience, which is even less reliable than the Gallup/Burch/Platek study.

Why do you find this so difficult to grasp, or so important to completely invalidate?

I have no difficulty grasping that you have provided poor supporting evidence and that the reluctance of others to accept your claims based on such a shoddy defense has resulted in your emotional frustration. I have no difficulty grasping that you have completely ignored evidence that contradicts your claim. I have no difficulty grasping that you have a poor understanding of logic and the scientific method in general, as evidenced by your arguments regarding semen, your pop-culture misunderstanding of the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, your confusion of correlation and causation, your incorrect definition of the argument from authority etc.

This is a skeptical forum. If it bothers you to have your ideas challenged and your errors exposed then you might be in the wrong place. For me, those are among the reasons I am a member here.

This is obviously going to go around and around and around, with you re-stating the same arguments and ignoring the counter evidence. You can try to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring if you like, but I'm tired of repeating myself. If you can present any new evidence or address any of the four points I previously made (and repeated) then I will be happy to respond. Otherwise I have nothing further to say on the subject.

 

[Wheezebucket]

Zygote, you're wasting your time, man. He's just going to keep ignoring your arguments and then take more lame jabs. I just read this whole thread and I think there's plenty of pages here to show he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Let him have the last, sad word if it means that much to him. Who knows, maybe he'll use it to actually provide some evidence.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to devour some rhino horn and get my groove on.

 

[slingblade]

Or the opposite, if you actually think.

Foster remarked that your posts are often considered "word salad."

The above quote was your reply to him, and to us. You reply is in tragic error.

I do think. When reading your posts, what I most often think is "what?" This indicates the reader's confusion, which springs from the lack of clarity of expression within your posts.

In other words, you are trying far too hard to sound erudite. This effort is harming your arguments, whatever they may be. You would do well, or at least do better, if you could simply say what you want to say without the use of the $50 words, the chronic misplacement of commas, and the convoluted syntax.

Note, please, that I am not criticising your arguments. One would first have to be able to figure them out in order to do so; I am criticising your manner of expression, which is confusing at the least, and deliberately, antagonistically obfuscating at most.

Just spit it out, man! Stop with the fancy and the frilly. Plain speech is called for, most strenuously.


Do heed the call.

 

[SirPhilip]

Um, if you are refering to the fact that after ejaculation, men are tired...that's hardly proof that there's "Something in the semen".

It contains mood altering components but the primary factor being testosterone. What do you think happens when that fluctuates? The fatigue is due to one's system being thrown out of equilibrium. It is normally negligible, but dramatic for those whose system has adjusted to training that way. If I completely threw it out of my system, I would literally be knocked on my face for the day, I wish quite often it was a placebo effect.

This is completely reasonable to assume from a medical standpoint, although the context is really different. You and Foster are welcome to go two weeks completely abstinent. It's the most obnoxious sensation known to man.

 

[SirPhilip]

Just spit it out, man! Stop with the fancy and the frilly. Plain speech is called for, most strenuously. Do heed the call.

I see you've discovered I force you to think. Like jumping to conclusions without explanation and letting you figure it out, right? It's a noise gate, as frequently those who respond don't think at all.

 

[zeusbheld]

what was the topic again? just sayin'.

 

[joobz]

It contains mood altering components but the primary factor being testosterone. What do you think happens when that fluctuates? The fatigue is due to one's system being thrown out of equilibrium. It is normally negligible, but dramatic for those whose system has adjusted to training that way. If I completely threw it out of my system, I would literally be knocked on my face for the day, I wish quite often it was a placebo effect.

This is completely reasonable to assume from a medical standpoint, although the context is really different. You and Foster are welcome to go two weeks completely abstinent. It's the most obnoxious sensation known to man.

Actually, it isn't reasonable to assume that at all because what is ejaculated was not participating in the brain chemistry. it's like a gasoline tanker. Sure the truck is running on gas, but that gas that it is transporting in the tanker isn't used at all for the engine that is transporting it. It's in a seperate compartment entirely.

Now, Medical science is fairly convinced that the refractory period post ejactulation (The feeling of being tired after sex) isn't a result of a decrease in a blood chemical, but is in fact a result of an INCREASE in a chemical called prolactin.

http://www.nature.com/ijir/journal/v14/n2/full/3900823a.html
It was found that multi-orgasmic men do not have a serum release of prolactin. It's what prevents them from feeling that tiredness that most men feel after sex.

 

[SirPhilip]

Zygote, you're wasting your time, man. He's just going to keep ignoring your arguments and then take more lame jabs. I just read this whole thread and I think there's plenty of pages here to show he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Let him have the last, sad word if it means that much to him. Who knows, maybe he'll use it to actually provide some evidence. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to devour some rhino horn and get my groove on.

You just read this whole thread. Well, I hold reading comprehension classes if you'd like to join Foster, Joobz, Articulett and others treated rudely for noise pollution. They aren't popular, and the cookies are smacked away in unanimous preference of me to be wrong, dishonest or something instead.

 

[articulett]

What isn't popular?-- your reading comprehension classes or Joobz, FZ, and I?

Preference of? Or preference for?

When you go back and read what you wrote does it make coherent sense to you? Would you be able to sum up what this conversation is about... and the general gist of each of your posts? Is Slingblade on your list of enemies too? What is main point you are trying to communicate in this thread?